[Macworld]

Post your comments for New Mac minis deliver serious performance here

[rob53]

Couple things. Replacing the hard drive is not something a typical user should try even using iFixit's instructions. They give it an 8 out of 10 but I've seen the hard drive removed and there are cables with very small connectors that have to be removed and replaced very carefully. Other than memory, buy what you need.

If you get around to reviewing and testing the server model, I'd be interested in seeing some real-world server testing results. Your tests are the simple single user tests. Since Lion Server doesn't come preconfigured with several server-related services, you'd need to install these (a separate article). Apple is saying the mini is one of their server-class computers (let's give it a chance before laughing) so let's test it.

possible test suites: (I haven't tested any of these)
http://www.speedtest.net/mini.php
http://www.vertain.com/?sst
http://www.sqlite.org/speed.html old data but has DB tests
google search for "database performance testing tools" show some others

These aren't the typical workstation testing tools but seeing if a mini server, especially with a quad i7, can perform as well as a SBS would be a put up or shut test for many Mac IT people.

[ChrisLicata7njs]

Purpleqsoo, on 03 August 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

The problem is, for people that want a Mac desktop with a matte screen monitor -- who aren't professionals that require the grunt of the Mac Pro -- the Mac Mini is the only option. And so these specification compromises further limit the options of people needing a matte-screen Mac desktop. There are lots of people who need matte screens with their desktops - see the petition at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

I just don't understand why people want matte displays so much. They distort color and have a washed-out look to me. It's fine that you like what you like, but I think there are not many people who would rather have matte than glossy, and they appear to be very vocal. As for being "glare proof" they aren't, not at all, maybe not as bad a glossy can be, but they have glare too.

[ldenning]

Once again a Mac gets a graphics short shrift, the lower end model. It's the model that many families might like to migrate into the Mac line with and of course the kids like to play some games. It sounds like they may get disappointed. I know I've been disappointed sometimes with Apple's graphic standards even at the high end, with chipsets being adopted that are a full year behind the PC world. They have been better in the past year or two.

[klahanas]

Though it contains a Sandy Bridge i5, isn't it the mobile version? This is a desktop machine that remains plugged in. It could have fared even better within the i5 class. Basically, from a performance perspective, it's a laptop without a monitor, touchpad, keyboard and DVD drive. The fact that it blows away last year's model is not indicative of price/performance in it's price range.

The Apple website makes no mention of which i5. This gives the perception they're trying to hide this fact.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 03 August 2011 - 06:20 AM

[spacest]

Thanks for the thorough review.
Q: Is the quad-core 2.0 processor faster than the dual-core 2.7 one?
Thanks.

[NaOH]

klahanas, on 03 August 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

Though it contains a Sandy Bridge i5, isn't it the mobile version? This is a desktop machine that remains plugged in. It could have fared even better within the i5 class. Basically, from a performance perspective, it's a laptop without a monitor, touchpad, keyboard and DVD drive. The fact that it blows away last year's model is not indicative of price/performance in it's price range.

The Apple website makes no mention of which i5. This gives the perception they're trying to hide this fact.

Apple has never been all that good at providing detailed technical specs.

This may be nice for the casual user, but it can be a real headache for those who have more technical needs.

However, My understanding is that the Mac mini is essentially a laptop in a compact desktop enclosure.

This post has been edited by NaOH: 03 August 2011 - 06:53 AM

[danmusician]

ChrisLicata7njs, on 03 August 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

Purpleqsoo, on 03 August 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

The problem is, for people that want a Mac desktop with a matte screen monitor -- who aren't professionals that require the grunt of the Mac Pro -- the Mac Mini is the only option. And so these specification compromises further limit the options of people needing a matte-screen Mac desktop. There are lots of people who need matte screens with their desktops - see the petition at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

I just don't understand why people want matte displays so much. They distort color and have a washed-out look to me. It's fine that you like what you like, but I think there are not many people who would rather have matte than glossy, and they appear to be very vocal. As for being "glare proof" they aren't, not at all, maybe not as bad a glossy can be, but they have glare too.

I love my i7 27" iMac. BUT, I have rearranged my studio several times and the glossy screen is still a problem. It's not the glare that's the problem, it's the REFLECTION. Areas of my screen will be unreadable because of images reflected in the screen. What good is awesome color if you can't see it? A matte screen might pick up some glare but not become unreadable.

I rarely comment on the glossy/matte screen issue because we have no choice but to live with it. I suspect that the opposite of your assumption is true. I think there are MANY more people who hate the glossy screen and just use it without complaining of forums like this.

[NaOH]

spacest, on 03 August 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

Thanks for the thorough review.
Q: Is the quad-core 2.0 processor faster than the dual-core 2.7 one?
Thanks.

That depends on the kind of task it is put to.

If a task can be broken into multiple smaller parallel tasks, then the quad-core processor will be more efficient. Servers often have to do lots of things at the same time, and benefit a lot from multiple cores.

However, a lot of computing tasks don't lend themselves to that. Computer games, file compression, video conversion, etc. are usually very reliant on everything happening in a strict sequence. Those kinds of tasks would be faster on the dual-core processor instead.

[jowie]

I've noticed that the 2.5 GHz option with Radeon has an option for a 750 GB + 256 GB SSD. Does this mean the Mac Mini actually has two internal 2.5" SATA bays? I thought it was only the Server model that did. If I could buy the cheapest Mac mini and add two drives myself, I'd be really tempted!

[MichaelWPerry0xuk]

Only one problem. These new Mac minis force some users into unhappy choices. They can either buy down, getting the low-end model and upgrading the RAM and HD themselves. Or they can buy the mid-range model that's more to their liking but also means throwing out more to get the configuration they want.

Apple should look into selling bare-bones (no RAM or HD) models through select Mac resellers only. The resellers could package whatever RAM, HD and SSD their customers want, taking over the support for what they add. It'd be a win-win situation for everyone.

[NaOH]

jowie, on 03 August 2011 - 07:03 AM, said:

I've noticed that the 2.5 GHz option with Radeon has an option for a 750 GB + 256 GB SSD. Does this mean the Mac Mini actually has two internal 2.5" SATA bays? I thought it was only the Server model that did. If I could buy the cheapest Mac mini and add two drives myself, I'd be really tempted!

Yes it does, and yes you can. (Although this is likely to invalidate your warranty and you need to add some SATA cabling for the second drive.)

[NaOH]

MichaelWPerry0xuk, on 03 August 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

Only one problem. These new Mac minis force some users into unhappy choices. They can either buy down, getting the low-end model and upgrading the RAM and HD themselves. Or they can buy the mid-range model that's more to their liking but also means throwing out more to get the configuration they want.

Apple should look into selling bare-bones (no RAM or HD) models through select Mac resellers only. The resellers could package whatever RAM, HD and SSD their customers want, taking over the support for what they add. It'd be a win-win situation for everyone.

I'm not so sure. Apple would probably see it as a problem.

Firstly, because it would fragment the support that is available for Macs. One of the strengths with Apple's current approach is that any user with any Mac can come to Apple, or any authorised service provider and get their Mac fixed. If Apple were to allow that level of customisation, then they would not be able to offer the same level of support to all Mac users.

Secondly, Apple is very specific about what hardware gets put in Macs. While a lot of hardware may work, there is no guarantee that a retailer would be as diligent as Apple with quality control. That could potentially harm Apple's brand.

Basically, Apple doesn't like to give away control.

This post has been edited by NaOH: 03 August 2011 - 07:25 AM

[tms]

ChrisLicata7njs, on 03 August 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

Purpleqsoo, on 03 August 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

The problem is, for people that want a Mac desktop with a matte screen monitor -- who aren't professionals that require the grunt of the Mac Pro -- the Mac Mini is the only option. And so these specification compromises further limit the options of people needing a matte-screen Mac desktop. There are lots of people who need matte screens with their desktops - see the petition at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

I just don't understand why people want matte displays so much. They distort color and have a washed-out look to me. It's fine that you like what you like, but I think there are not many people who would rather have matte than glossy, and they appear to be very vocal. As for being "glare proof" they aren't, not at all, maybe not as bad a glossy can be, but they have glare too.

I for one can say that I definitely prefer a matte screen - it definitely reduces glare. Nobody declares them 'glare proof' as you seem to state.
When I sit in front of a glossy screen, inside, with other lights and windows behind me, I will always have to shift position and adjust the screen angle to try to keep bright reflections off the screen. I seldom spend much effort doing this with a matte screen. And then try to have someone look at your screen from the side, they have to shift the screen just so, or move around behind me to some extent in order to avoid reflections on top of what they are trying to view.
In my experience with people using and purchasing laptops, the matte option is not as slim a minority as you might think.
{I would guess/assume that a some of the more casual users aren't aware there are options for screens, and/or don't want to wait the extra time for BTO... they get what is on the shelf in front of them.}